Clio Wired (History 696)

After finishing the readings I realized that there is some general consensus among the scholars we read regarding the “promise” but no fast and hard guidelines chiseled into stone. Rosenzweig noted that these web essays were attempts to bring together the scholarly article, or what David Staley calls the “word model,” the cornerstone of our profession that retains “the conventional validation and peer review” with “the networked and digital space of the World Wide Web.” Bass noted that the promise of “hypertext” (what seemed to be the preferred term for this new form of scholarship) is in its ability to alter the nature of the essay by “shifting the relationship between argument and artifact.” All the authors seemed intrigued by the uses of primary source documentation in these web essays. They also argued that such essays should have “interactivity.” Blitz and Krasniewicz chose this medium because they thought it would be the best way “for connecting disparate information in the same way that a dream does.” I wasn’t quite sure what to make of their statement as I have never really analyzed a dream--but OK, I'm in graduate school and need to challenge myself now and again.

Staley’s concept of where this medium will end up parallels what Janet Murray’s Hamlet on the Holodeck laid out, that is, an immersive technology that will place someone literally within a historic “story” where one could interact with whatever figures the author(s) placed in that story. He called it a “three-dimensional immersive visual history.” Throw in some of the factors we have mentioned in class, such as there must be an argument, and we have some guidelines in reviewing these essays. Ultimately, though, as Rosenzweig points out, this is truly a new medium and we find ourselves in uncharted waters, which means the individual is still in a position to give their opinion, informed or not as it may be, as to whether or not a web essay or website lives up to this “promise” with little guidance. But as mentioned there are a few points of navigation in our relatively unchartered waters, such as interactivity, creative use of and access to sources, and visual appeal.

What can anyone say about “Dreaming Arnold Schwarzenegger.” I visited the site first at work but the site kept locking up on me. So instead I used my dial-up connection at home and found that some of the website’s features were slow to load and others were problematic, especially the film clips -- which made it tough to judge/critique the novel aspects of the site but still I went for it.

The viewer had lots of navigation choices under the appropriately titled link “Navigation Choices” but my first thought was that perhaps there were too many choices? It was frustrating trying to find some information to read! Overall the whole site seemed a bit “busy” and being a linear thinker of course I was at a loss where to first go when faced with their unique index page. I found that I felt at home with the narratives although I did have trouble following the thought processes behind the essays, such as “The Intersexts of Linda Hamilton’s Arms.” However, I tried to keep in mind the fact that when visiting a new neighborhood at first there is apprehension but with time one finds where one needs to go and becomes comfortable (or at least somewhat more comfortable) with their surroundings and so it went for this website.

The authors utilized novel techniques such as the “Ms. International Competition 1993” which was a series of photographs that were “interpreted” by Krasniewicz without text. I tried to be open-minded about this but again came up with more questions than answers. Is she referring to the blending of gender norms in our society or was it that there is a move of the female form towards the male?

There were the references to Arnold in everyday culture, which was fun for the most part but ultimately I kept asking “is this history?” Cultural history, perhaps. The Gallery of Pregnant Men? Oh my. The Dreams’ databases were interesting but a bit bizarre as were the Maria Shriver tidbits. I found I learned more than I wanted to about them on a rather private level: how sick Blitz got, etc. And their witty repertoire got to be a bit much. Their browser set-up suggestions were clear, however, and I kept wishing I could get the film clips to work! Then I began to wonder if I should have done an illegal drug prior to going through this site; would it have helped? The authors’ ultimate purpose was to offer a “template for exploring the issues of living and thinking at the end of the 20th Century.” Hmm. OK, I recognize that elements of Arnie have entered our culture and so what does that say about our culture? Not being a cultural historian may make any of my observations seen naïve, I fear. But here goes.

The authors were right, there was no way they could have included this much disparate information in any type of a traditional paper publication while the web suited it well. But does it demonstrate the “promise” of digital scholarship? It was almost too much to include in one website but for this form of cultural studies it may well be the best example out there – that’s one of the benefits of the World Wide Web – anyone can publish anything. Some of the authors we read noted that websites are constantly evolving and it is one of their detriments – when is a site done/finished/published and as such static? But I would argue that this particular site needs to do a bit more evolving. And as Susan Smulyan notes, give me a link for linear thinkers!

The “Hearsay of the Sun” site was a breath of fresh air after dealing with Arnie and the dreams of two people I knew nothing about (at least before I visited their website). Dial-up proved to be slow at first but once loaded was fine. The frames at first were distracting but once you felt comfortable moving about the site his design work did prove to be interesting. One of the authors noted that building such an essay took probably five times more work than simply writing a scholarly article and this site definitely took some effort. The back button worked! Seeing the entire text of his sources was also unique and I guess is one of the factors that should be considered “doing something new.” This feature provided a unique insight into the author and his argument by seeing what parts of a document he/she quoted and it was one way to check quickly for accuracy and also get a sense of the overall documentary base.

The site was very easy to navigate, and it followed along a traditional form of essay with an argument regarding race, identity and the legal process in the late 19th century. The most useful aspects of his web essay were the links to his secondary sources as well as the primary sources he used. After being on the site for a while, though, the layout did get distracting but I was able to minimize various windows to concentrate on his text. There were a few illustrations but not as many as I would have liked to see, which is one of the benefits of having a web-based essay, right? All through his site I kept asking myself if it was better than print and after thinking about it, with the amount of work it must have taken, I would have to say no, ultimately seeing his sources was a novel feature but was not really necessary and I would argue it detracted from his argument.

This would have worked fine as an article. It was a novel idea, though, and as such had merit as a web-based article. It is precisely this kind of experimentation that must be undertaken if such scholarship is ever to be accepted by the powers that give tenure. Taken overall, these sites were on the road to “promise” but I would argue did not meet the ultimate goal, which, unfortunately, I am at a loss to define; they certainly did not come within reach of Staley's “three-dimensional immersive visual history.” It was easier to judge the Schwarzenegger website as Westbrook quoted David Kolb and I found myself nodding vigorously: “The reader needs to have the sense of having entered a zone dedicated to an argument, a discourse, or a discursive gesture with some local form, rather than being within a random cloud of associations and links.” Judging Thurston’s site was more difficult. Ultimately I thought that Thurston’s web essay would have worked better in print. As for Krasniewicz’s and Blitz’s I’m still trying to determine which illegal substance would work best with it (or perhaps keep it legal and take a good stiff belt of Scotch?)